91涩漫

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 91涩漫 Newsletter

Class Disrupted is an education podcast featuring author Michael Horn and Futre鈥檚 Diane Tavenner in conversation with educators, school leaders, students and other members of school communities as they investigate the challenges facing the education system in the aftermath of the pandemic 鈥� and where we should go from here. Find every episode by bookmarking our Class Disrupted page or subscribing on , or .

In the finale of Class Disrupted鈥檚 seventh season, Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner reflect on the season’s conversations about artificial intelligence 鈥� from how the tech is shaping school models to new tools. In a 鈥渘o-holds-barred鈥� conversation 鈥� they talked about how much of the education sector is still operating under the traditional model, the challenges of creating learning experiences outside of that model, and the tensions they see between innovation and entrenched systems. Throughout the conversation, they touch on issues like policy backlash against technology in schools, the value of outcome-based contracts, and whether microschools or low-cost private schools can actually drive large-scale change.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane.

Michael Horn: We鈥檙e in person.

Diane Tavenner: I know. 

Michael Horn: Two episodes in a row.

Diane Tavenner: It鈥檚 amazing. For those who are only listening, we actually are sitting together here in Boston, which is super fun. It鈥檚 good to be on this coast with you. And for me, the best part of this is, I got to have family dinner last night at your home. And I woke up this morning thinking about it. I just felt really happy. It was joyful. I think you know that my favorite night of the week is family dinner night at my house.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And I hustle home, so I don鈥檛 miss it. And it was so fun to be with your girls and with Tracy. And I was thinking a lot about those few hours and, like, the learning that was happening at that table. I mean, we got to play this board game that your girls had, like, invented, and the dialogue and the conversation and the curiosity and that, you know, they were making their own lunches, which called back to, like, Rhett cooking.

Michael Horn: Yeah. But he was doing that from a young age. I remember鈥�

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Michael Horn: Preparing meals and shopping and everything.

Diane Tavenner: Totally. And so that was really fun. And to be back in that sort of younger age, because mine are older. I should say, the thing I kept thinking is, like, this is what learning is, and what if this is what it felt like? I wish everyone could have this experience.

And yeah. So that was good.

Michael Horn: No, it鈥檚 really cool. I will say. We also then had a conversation this morning about 鈥� She was like, so what night is family dinner night in the Tavenner household? And should we think about creating a similar structure for our girls? So you being there also caused us 鈥� because I think it鈥檚 intentionality, also.

Diane Tavenner: It is.

Michael Horn: Right. And that intentionality we both brought to raising our kids and now thinking about reinventing schools. And I think it was interesting because in our previous episode, we were live as well.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: We were at the ASU-GSV Summit with Reed Hastings. And it was interesting to hear Reed, I think, for the first time in my memory, and I think that鈥檚 what he talked about. We actually need to reinvent the classroom model, the school model itself. We can鈥檛 just be tinkering, if you will, toward utopia or layering over here and whatever else. That鈥檚 obviously the tune we鈥檝e been singing for most of our professional careers.

Diane Tavenner: Right. But it was fun. It was exciting to hear him talk about that and reflect on the work that he鈥檚 done in different, you know, elements of education. And to really start to zero in. We have to work beyond just the classroom if we really want to transform the experience for young people. And so, I mean, I guess it always feels good to be confirmed and validated.

Michael Horn: Sure. We feel like geniuses now.

Reflecting on mid-season insights

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. So I think our plan for this today is a callback to mid season, where we did this in person also kind of mid season. Oh my gosh, we鈥檙e learning so much. Let鈥檚 get together and just reflect and process and talk about what we鈥檙e learning after that first half of the season where we were really talking to sort of thought leaders and people who are thinking big picture and who understand AI and in AI, and so we thought we鈥檇 do that again, where the back half of our big AI exploration season has really been with practitioners, I would say. And so what are they? What are we making? We had all these really fascinating conversations. This is our first time to really sit down and, like, sort through them and process them and understand what we heard. And then we鈥檝e also been thinking about next season, and so we鈥檒l share a little bit of that

Michael Horn: Tease a little bit. It鈥檚 been interesting, and I鈥檓 glad. Process is the word that I鈥檝e been thinking about because I think when people appear on our podcast, this sounds silly, but it鈥檚 not an endorsement of their model or their tool or whatever it is by us. It鈥檚 a genuine learning opportunity for us. And obviously we were both interested in new school models.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Which was three episodes that we had. And then we were interested in the ed tech tools that are coming up and using AI in different ways. And we were trying to process. We had this framework that you introduced in the last time we were in person in Cambridge or in Boston about the sort of horizon one, horizon two, horizon three, schooling models, and the way I think we鈥檝e sort of categorized it, there was H1 is sort of the industrial model that we know, and you had H3 as sort of this post industrial model. And H2 is sort of this hybrid that is elements of both, maybe, and so forth.

Diane Tavenner: I love that metaphor of the steamship that is outfitted with sails still because it has to be running both because steam is not reliable enough. You can鈥檛 really get all the functionality you need and trust it. So you have to still bring the H1, if you will, into it. I鈥檓 glad you brought up the framework because that really shaped how I saw the second half of the season and had all those conversations. I鈥檝e actually been thinking a lot about that framework and how my understanding of it is sort of, I don鈥檛 know, maybe becoming a little bit more nuanced as we talk with people and think about these different models. And so that might be a place to start.

Michael Horn: Yeah, I think let鈥檚 dig into that because. And you can take it wherever you want. I think it鈥檚 a framework that I have found both useful, and I鈥檝e been struggling with, like, what is this H3 really gonna look like? Where does it really depart from the grammar of schooling as we鈥檝e known it? And do we really think we鈥檙e gonna actually get there? Or are there gonna always be this sort of H2 pulling us some of the elements. And then I guess I鈥檒l say the last thing, which will probably come up as we talk about the school models that we had on the podcast. Where, you know, where are parents in all this? Like, where is their headspace? ‘Cause, like, what we want, where parents are, where schools are. And I, for those that can鈥檛 see my hand gestures, I actually think that鈥檚 the continuum at the moment. Like historically, I think parents were more conservative than the schools, I think that may have flipped.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and I think there鈥檚 some evidence of that with the growth in microschools and sort of alternatives like, people really sort of self bundling, if you will, you know the homeschooling.

Michael Horn: I was shocked by the way from the homeschooling I read this morning in 91涩漫. 10 million, I know. 10 million families. They reported from this RAND survey that Johns Hopkins had done. I think it was Angela had done there. And that鈥檚 a big number.

Diane Tavenner: It鈥檚 a big number. And I think it speaks to this idea of where are parents and I agree with you, they鈥檝e historically been more conservative. I mean, I wrote prepared to try to, you know, I call it a love letter to parents, like to introduce them to some of the ideas of what鈥檚 possible. Because my, my feeling was like they want one thing for their kids, but they don鈥檛 know how to get it. And so they kind of double down on, you know, the existing model, if you will. I actually think we鈥檙e starting to see, at least for some, a break from that. And not just a small amount, but, you know, a growing.

Michael Horn: In some cases quite big. Yeah, in some cases there鈥檚, there鈥檚 steps and I actually think that comes up. I don鈥檛 know if you want to stay on the H1, H3 or go into the model.

Diane Tavenner: I think what I would say is just a couple of reflections and observations, how I鈥檝e been using that framework in real life. So, one, I find that it is helping me be engaged in conversations with educators and developers. All the people who are in, who care about this work and who are working in it, who are thinking about AI in that if I can just set the framework out up front and say, look, like my passion is developing the post industrial model and H3, and honestly I don鈥檛 think I鈥檝e seen it yet, and I don鈥檛 think it exists yet, and that鈥檚 not a bad thing. That鈥檚 fine. But let鈥檚 not pretend that certain things are H3 or that they are a real new model. We might have that conversation in the models conversation when I don鈥檛 think they are. And you brought this up the last time we talked, like, we also need tons of kids are in H1, they鈥檙e going to be in H1 for a while.

How do we use AI to make those experiences better? So I think when I鈥檓 able to say to people which conversation are we having? Where are we working right now? And the key for me has been how do we not constrain or compromise work in developing the post industrial model or the H3 place by working on H1? And that is a real risk, I think, because, I mean, there鈥檚 so many, like, elements of H1 policy and norms and practices and tools that just codify and solidify that model and then therefore prevent unintentionally the invention of new models.

Michael Horn: And we talked about that some in the midseason in terms of you named assessment and special education in particular in those. I think there鈥檚 a lot more and frankly 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: I鈥檓 going to add a new one.

Michael Horn: Since we recorded, I think we have seen the growth, the fastest growth in my memory of a series of policies around screen time. Cell phones were already emerging but now into screen time in general that I don鈥檛 love but well intentioned in H1 that are like diametrically opposed to 鈥� I won鈥檛 call them H3, but I will say, like, these new models of schooling that are appearing by education entrepreneurs in sort of this H2, H3 nebulous area.

College and career readiness concerns

Diane Tavenner: Right. I couldn鈥檛 agree more. The other one that I would add is the place that I鈥檓 working every day right now. So let鈥檚 call it the sort of college and career counseling and readiness world, if you will. And it鈥檚 just so clear to me that, you know, the goals in that area by the vast majority of people are to improve college and career counseling and readiness in the H1 model. And I keep saying, like, if we鈥檙e successful at that, don鈥檛 we just codify this entire system? Don鈥檛 we reinforce it and bolster it and prevent ourselves from moving to what I believe is and certainly what we鈥檙e trying to do at Futre, which is life navigation, whole human development, like enabling young people to emerge into a life of flourishing, to launch into a fulfilling life, not just get accepted to college or you know, take that next sort of educational step if you will, which is what is happening right now, I think, in H1. And so just the, the 鈥� I don鈥檛 think I鈥檝e convinced a lot of people of that.

Michael Horn: Yeah, so. So it鈥檚 interesting. I think it is a risk, one, but 鈥� so I agree with you, no surprise. But two, I鈥檓 going to take a theory that we use in my class and from the Clay Christensen playbook, if you will, value networks, and Tom Arnett has been writing a lot about this at the Christensen Institute. And basically the way I鈥檒l say it is this.

Let鈥檚 use an analogy. When RCA and these large vacuum tube consumer electronics products, they got disrupted by Sony and these transistor LED products, it wasn鈥檛 just Sony replacing RCA, it was also all of the component suppliers of RCA got disrupted by a whole new batch of component suppliers because they were completely plug-in compatible with the old and vice versa. And then it wasn鈥檛 just that, it was also retail got completely disrupted. So RCA sold through appliance stores that made their money not by selling RCA products but by repairing.

Diane Tavenner: Of course.

Michael Horn: Right. Because these vacuum pipes would blow out. Sony got sold in discount retail. Target, Walmart, Kmart, all birthed in 1962. And so the shorthand that we used to say at Entangled, where I spent some time, was systems disrupt systems. And so in some ways, like, you鈥檙e building the new system now. I will tell you, the struggle I have when I teach in the class, which is we use a few school networks as like different, different versions of this. So we have Virtual Learning Academy, Charter School in New Hampshire, Big Picture Learning.

Like a few of these that Tom has written some case studies on, and every single one of them at some point pull back into the existing system and like, Tom鈥檚 answer to this is always, like, well yes, we inhabit Earth.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, it鈥檚 the gravitational pull right?

Michael Horn: Like we are like, we are not completely free on Mars yet. Sorry, Elon. But like, so where is the limit of exchange of these systems and where are crosswalks not distorting these new things and where are they, to your point, actually codifying like grooves on a train track that are impossible to escape.

Diane Tavenner: So that鈥檚 an interesting segue into talking about the three models that we talked about, I think during the season. Because, you know, we specifically wanted to talk to Alpha School because like, everyone was talking about Alpha School. There was a lot of sort of PR and marketing out there about them. But we kind of wanted to really get under the hood and understand, you know, was this new. A new invention or not? And what was going on. We wanted to talk to John Danner, who鈥檚 the co-founder of Rocketship and now starting Flourish, literally, you know, AI Native designed as an AI Native model. So what does that mean?

Michael Horn: By the way, he is the only one that鈥檚 actually AI Native.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: Think about it. Because Alpha dates back to 2014 or whatever.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And then Summit, of course.

Diane Tavenner: And then we talked to Summit about, you know, their vision to create the next generation of model, which would be an AI Native. So I鈥檓 curious.

Michael Horn: Play, you. Go ahead, go ahead, ask your question. Ask your question.

Diane Tavenner: Well, what鈥檚 your impression of those three? I mean, how would, how did you come away from, you know, what were you believing that they were actually inventing Horizon 3, AI Native, you know what is your takeaway?

Discussing H3 framework development

Michael Horn: Yeah, it鈥檚 a good question. I think this is where I鈥檓 struggling with the framework because I still can鈥檛 completely imagine all the features of H3. And so, I think, let鈥檚 tease this for next year鈥檚. I think we should like construct a little bit more clarity around what really is H3 and what are the distinguishing characteristics? Because I think, in my world, I sort of, like, I don鈥檛 know, Montessori feels like it has a bunch of these. And if I look at the Alpha model, I actually see some tiebacks to Montessori. I see some tiebacks, ironically, to big picture learning and things like that. Let鈥檚 put that aside for a moment. In some ways they feel like the closest, sort of like pulling from both sides of it in very clear ways.

Flourish to me felt like the closest to what I might imagine H3 in a middle school.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, I think it has the potential.

Michael Horn: We don鈥檛 know yet, right? And I appreciated John鈥檚 honesty with where they are. And then I had this 鈥� I鈥檒l tell you my take on Summit, let鈥檚 start there. Yeah. Because that鈥檚 your baby.

And you asked this question before we recorded. So no one knows you asked me this question, but you said, like, I鈥檓 wondering how you鈥檙e going to respond and react to this. Because in your mental model, Michael, to disrupt yourself, you need to have a completely separate, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And then, like, the old migrates out to the new, and that鈥檚 not what they鈥檙e doing. So I had this thought though, as I finished. ‘Cause I didn鈥檛 know what to expect. I came in with it a little bit, like, hackles up a little bit. And then when we finished it, my reflection was this, which is when there鈥檚 another way to survive.

Disruptive innovation that we don鈥檛 talk about that often, which is because I think it鈥檚 less proven. But the way is you are so clear on the job to be done that you do your mission, what you don鈥檛 do, your priorities, what you don鈥檛 prioritize, et cetera. That when new technologies come in or new features, you can swap them out very cleanly. Because everyone in the organization understands this is what we do.

Diane Tavenner: Interesting.

Michael Horn: So let me give you an example outside of an industry, and then you can 鈥� I鈥檓 going to let you fill in the blanks from it. So there鈥檚 this retail store that came in at the quote unquote “low end” that has never gone up market and never been disrupted by online retail. And it鈥檚 called IKEA. Probably know it.

Diane Tavenner: My gosh, my children love it.

Michael Horn: Right. And IKEA, we have become convinced they do one job to be done really well, which is, I need to furnish this apartment today.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Like I 鈥� yeah. And they鈥檙e not selling heirloom furniture. They鈥檙e not trying to go high end. Nor are they threatened, though, by discount furniture or Wayfair or any of these folks. Because the job to be done is so distinct and clear. And they lay out the entire store like you鈥檙e walking around the apartment, and you fuel up midway through Swedish meatballs, right?

Like. And so a new technology comes along and their simple question always is, does it help us get the job to be done?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Accomplish it better, or is it irrelevant to us? And if so 鈥� so take China, for example.

Diane Tavenner: Do they ever ask if that job still needs to be done?

Michael Horn: That鈥檚 probably a good question, but I think you probably have to.

Diane Tavenner: I think that they probably keep finding that job keeps needing to be done.

Michael Horn: I think it鈥檚 still relevant. And they probably say the market鈥檚 pretty big.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: It鈥檚 a good question. But so in China, it鈥檚 interesting. Like, in the U.S., we drive large cars, so we go. We pick out the furniture with the stickers, and we go down to the bottom thing and we pick off these flat carts, and we put them on that cart and we check out and we drive off in our cars and we assemble them really nicely. In China, they don鈥檛 have big cars. And so IKEA will deliver it to your house same day.

Diane Tavenner: Which is key.

Michael Horn: Super integrated around the job, and they can make those sorts of decisions because, like, does it help us get the job to be done or not? Context changes fine.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: We just know what our true north is.

Diane Tavenner: Such clarity.

Michael Horn: Such clarity, right? And so it prevents them from going up market and specificity. Right? And you can imagine all the ways that trickles down, I think. And so my read when we were listening to Summit was like, now, you could argue your mission changed, right? When you moved away from college. But I don鈥檛 say, not really.

I would say it was more. You actually were really clarifying what it meant to educate a prepared human.

Diane Tavenner: I agree. I agree. Sharpening, clarifying.

Michael Horn: Sharpening, clarifying the metrics

Diane Tavenner: And talking about it in a way that was more resident.

Michael Horn: Yeah, to the families you served

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: So I guess my point is, like, when I heard what y鈥� all are or what Summit is doing.

Diane Tavenner: Not me, the team at Summit, big fan.

Refining educational processes with AI

Michael Horn: Katie and Dan and the whole team at Summit, big fan. They, like, they see, you know, Summit learning got ripped out, and they鈥檙e like, okay, we can design this new technology with AI or partner or whatever it is to accomplish what is the school that Dan walked us through very helpfully, I thought, on that episode, and, like, they could reinvent expeditions. But again, it鈥檚 not changing the DNA and the mission and clarity of the place. It鈥檚 more like, how do we sharpen the processes and better get them done right now with the tools available. I think that鈥檚 very possible

Diane Tavenner: Without being disrupted and to be very relevant. And the adoption of that and that technology.

Michael Horn: Job to be done is still, like, the prepared thing has not changed.

Diane Tavenner: No, it has. If any, it鈥檚 maybe more so, more relevant. Oh, that鈥檚 such an interesting.

Michael Horn: Here鈥檚 where we get to say we didn鈥檛 tell each other our talking points.

Diane Tavenner: We literally wait to talk about these things. That also brings me probably back to Alpha, because using that lens, I鈥檓 trying to think if I feel like Alpha has that level of specificity and clarity in a job to be done. Or if they dont?

Michael Horn: I鈥檓 not sure they do.

Diane Tavenner: I don鈥檛 think they do? Right?

Michael Horn: I鈥檓 not sure.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Because their model feels a little bit more like this. Like you said, there鈥檚 a little piece from here and a little piece from there and a little piece from there, and they鈥檙e kind of stuck together. But it鈥檚 not clear what they鈥檙e adding up to, necessarily.

Michael Horn: I don鈥檛 disagree with that. To me, not just from our episode, but in subsequent conversations and things of that nature, what I鈥檝e taken away from Alpha 鈥� Okay, let me say it differently. I think the thing that probably bothers you the most is the disconnection between the morning academics and then the life skills learned in the afternoon, is my guess.

Diane Tavenner: For sure. Just this sort of absence of intentionality. And, like, I just don鈥檛 understand how you have.

Michael Horn: How you have been separated.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And so my takeaway is I don鈥檛 disagree. For my kiddos, I would agree as well. And I also think relative to the current system 鈥� 

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: It鈥檚 still significantly better than what most families would be getting on both dimensions, I think.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And then you have to talk about ROI. Like, is it $75,000 better?

Michael Horn: Well, so the the price point, let鈥檚 actually talk about that. ‘Cause I agree with that.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And it鈥檚 not what I would price it at, but I also cynically understand pricing at that high. This is a higher education thing that I hate. Right. I鈥檇 always. You know, Western Governor鈥檚 University is not seen as a prestigious university because they charge $6,000 or whatever, but they鈥檙e amazing at their job to be done. But the game is, like, if you come in at this high price point, in the absence of metrics that people universally really can understand and agree on, they equate price to quality.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. It鈥檚 a luxury brand. It鈥檚 a luxury good. And so they burst onto the scene and sort of signal to people with lots of money they did break.

Michael Horn: I mean, we鈥檝e been frustrated. We haven鈥檛 been able to break into the conversation. We said that up front in the two hours. I think that鈥檚 been a way for them actually to do it. And so I鈥檝e sort of like, I鈥檓 living in this dual world where I鈥檓 like, it鈥檚 not how I would do it. It鈥檚 not. And I get it. Like, I get what it鈥檚 accomplished for them.

And there are many parents for whom like they鈥檙e really desperate for. They鈥檙e running toward it or maybe running away from something. And that鈥檚 more I think, the truth.

Parents exploring educational alternatives

Diane Tavenner: Those are the conversations I鈥檝e had with parents, you know, when parents are running away from something to a variety of different choices depending what鈥檚 on the table for them. Which again, I always take as feedback as someone who wants to be in the system and serving the majority of young people. I鈥檓 like, huh, you gotta pay attention to that when people are running from what you鈥檙e offering and you know, where are we? Where are we not meeting their needs? And really, to me, this is what it means to co-design and work with communities to create this public good, if you will. The other thing that came up for me in the models 鈥� and this is on Flourish, but it鈥檚 come up a lot this year. And I鈥檓 curious what your thought is. You just talked about how the conventional wisdom is that, you know, to disrupt yourself you have to sort of, you know, wall off that new innovation, which was certainly the approach I took when I was leading Summit. I鈥檓 glad to know there鈥檚 another pathway. I think I talk to a lot of people right now who view microschools as that possibility.

I think that鈥檚 what they鈥檙e thinking. So by people I mean, you know, whether it be school districts who are thinking about starting microschools, where they are going to do their innovation there, charter school networks who are thinking about doing their innovation there. Certainly Dan. Or yeah, John. John Danner is rethinking about, you know, starting as a microschool. And he talked about how he thought that the scaling there would be easier and whatnot. I鈥檓 skeptical of the microschool as the place where you can actually design a new model.

And the reason that I鈥檓 skeptical and I鈥檓 curious what you, I actually don鈥檛 think at the micro level you work through so many of the elements and principles and systems of an actual model. Like, I just can鈥檛 imagine serving 50 million kids a year in microschools. Like, I just don鈥檛 think that adds up to a system of educating the number of young people we need to educate. But I could be totally wrong.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And if that鈥檚 the case, like, how do you make the 鈥� ? What do you actually learn and develop in a microschool that is transferable to a larger school or a larger system or a larger model? I feel like there鈥檚 a lot of gaps there.

Michael Horn: That鈥檚 interesting. A lot of thoughts, so we鈥檒l go through them. So, one, and then push back where you 鈥� because I don鈥檛 鈥� so on the district and charters using microschools, that I would say is promising, but I鈥檓 unconvinced. And the reason I鈥檓 not convinced is I still don鈥檛 see the mechanism.

Let me say it this way. Districts for years have had alternative schools to serve, people who dropped out of the system. Great area of non-consumption. I鈥檝e written a lot about how I thought it could be a disruptive thing. But the thing that they don鈥檛 do is disruption, has to grow, and people have to migrate out to it. And no one migrates out to it.

Diane Tavenner: No.

Michael Horn: Right? And I think there鈥檚 a lot of reasons for that. But I think part of it is the business model. The charters are a little different, but the business model district is the district, it鈥檚 not the schools.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: And so schools take on the thing of pilots.

Diane Tavenner: That鈥檚 a bigger system. And I鈥檓 like, how does that microschool in any way help us understand and transform the system?

Michael Horn: Yeah 鈥� no. And so I鈥檓 鈥� I don鈥檛 know that the dual 鈥� I am convinced that the dual transformation strategy works there, even though I鈥檝e recommended districts do this because I don鈥檛 see another avenue for them. Let鈥檚 leave aside charters for a second. I guess I would push back on the 鈥� well, maybe I would relabel it from microschools.

I鈥檓 moving away from that phrase because I think “micro” implies small. And if I look at what I think the most promising disruptive innovations in this new schooling space are, I don鈥檛 think the feature is necessarily small.

Diane Tavenner: The size.

Michael Horn: Yeah. I think the feature is that it鈥檚 a low-cost private school. And so, like, Flourish may end. It鈥檚 small at the moment, but it may end up being several hundred students. I could imagine maybe John would say no.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Con Lab school was originally a microschool. It鈥檚 like 300 kids or something like that.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: So it鈥檚 growing. You wouldn鈥檛 call that micro anymore.

Diane Tavenner: I鈥檓 not trying to call it low cost either.

Michael Horn: Well, that鈥檚 fair. That鈥檚 fair also. Right? So 鈥� but I guess the point being, that鈥檚 a good push, by the way. But the 鈥� I guess I am somewhat optimistic still that like we鈥檒l have hundreds and thousands of these different schools, and some of them will be chains, and some of them will be sort of your local coffee shops. Sort of.

Challenges of educational system changes

Michael Horn: If you think about the mix, and I do think families are potentially going to move out of the district system into these new things. Now I have two thoughts on what you鈥檙e saying, which is, like, how do you do all these people like the size and complexity? And I guess I have a couple thoughts. One, I think we don鈥檛. I don鈥檛 think we can know the answer to that until they start to grow in size and complexity and solve the next problem. And there鈥檚 a tendency of people in education to want to design the system top down.

Diane Tavenner: That鈥檚 so true.

Michael Horn: And I don鈥檛 think we鈥檙e going to. I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 how it鈥檚 going to work. So that鈥檚 one. But the second one is, I think I can imagine a lot of families in more bespoke smaller communities like these 10. I mean, if it鈥檚 truly 10 million of 50, like that鈥檚 already 20% that are DIYing. And is the future system 100%? I doubt it. But it could be 70.

Diane Tavenner: What鈥檚 interesting to me about that is the DIYing. And this was the point of that article this morning, is literally people. It felt like summer to me when I was like organizing all these summer camps and these activities. And so these parents are like assembling and essentially duct taping together. The, you know, the microschool part tending to be more of like online digitally driven learning.

Michael Horn: Or it鈥檚 like there are two days a week there, real world experience. The set of three things.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And so in my mind I鈥檓 like, okay, that鈥檚 a parent sort of cobbling all those things together. But if you鈥檙e a microschool, that the parents are going to you because they鈥檙e expecting you as a school to put all those things together. How do you do that? If it really is about small, how do you have all those real world experiences that we鈥檙e imagining for a small number of kids? I just don鈥檛 understand how it works.

Michael Horn: No. And this is where I think we agree, which is, I personally think, the upmarket trajectory of the sector because disruption comes at the low end. It doesn鈥檛 serve most people and has to serve more complicated use cases, which is what I think you鈥檙e describing. And so I don鈥檛 know what that looks like. But my current thinking is maybe all these microschools plug into what鈥檚 a community center and it鈥檚 actually kind of permeable between them. I think your argument would be H3 is actually the operating system underlying how these all connect to each other, which we haven’t created yet.

And then the second thought I have, also, is frankly Odyssey and Class Wallet and all these things that are trying to direct education savings accounts. I think they have to reduce the complexity of stitching this together. And it鈥檚 almost like you used to say this when you were in COVID, operating Summit. You had, like, the different flavors or 鈥� right? You go up to this 鈥� the 鈥� the sub shop, and, like, the 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: The menu item.

Michael Horn: Yeah, exactly.

Diane Tavenner: The ordering, the sandwich.

Michael Horn: But I kind of think that鈥檚 what we see start to, like, take the coordination out of it.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Because my orders aren鈥檛 going to be 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: I can order the signature sandwich where there鈥檚 no substitutions. But I know that I鈥檓 getting like the Santa Cruz that has turkey and avocado.

Michael Horn: Right. And most families are not going to be able to do. And when they do, it鈥檚 not going to taste very good, to use your analogy.

Diane Tavenner: To make their own.

Michael Horn: Right. Like that鈥檚 the other part of the innovation we don鈥檛, haven鈥檛 seen yet. And so sort of my evolution in thinking has been it鈥檚 the coordinating infrastructure. It鈥檚 like the different reassembled parts that coordinate. Like maybe it鈥檚 hop, skip, drive as part of this ecosystem. For those that don鈥檛 know, that鈥檚 a sort of disruptive to the bus or car driving

Diane Tavenner: Uber of busing, essentially.

Michael Horn: Exactly. Right. And 鈥� and like all these things, maybe this new system and future I would think would be part of it.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And anyway. But I almost think the way that happens is like, we鈥檙e gonna just have to solve each next problem.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: To try to take more like more students and more families.

Rethinking microschool education

Diane Tavenner: And I think that comes back to this idea that I guess maybe you鈥檙e helping me realize that I鈥檝e been sort of experiencing the microschool as like people who are like, oh, we鈥檙e gonna reinvent education in the classroom. Like, like individual classroom teachers are going to reinvent education. And so microschools were starting to feel like that to me. I鈥檓 like, no, we鈥檙e not going to reinvent this system. So what you鈥檙e helping me see is like, yeah, we have to like effectively scale though, if we want them to be micro, if it is about small, or we need to understand the principles and then figure out how they all kind of coordinate and work together to scale up the system. Because the system is the actual. And if you think about it, the industrial model, most people don鈥檛 go to their school and think this is like a factory because the factory is the underlying infrastructure of how everything runs.

Michael Horn: That is the operating system.

Diane Tavenner: That is the operating system. And I think what I want and what you want is a post-industrial operating system that enables and allows the experience we had at family dinner last night, like that type of learning. And it counts and it has all. And so, will some of the features of those schools look like the ones we see today? Of course. Of course they will, because there鈥檚 amazing things that happen today, and those of course get pulled into that. But it鈥檚 that underlying infrastructure that really transforms, I think, everything.

Michael Horn: I think that鈥檚 right. I sort of want to jump into the tools. We probably have a couple things we want to pull back onto the schools on. But we can go back for a long time. We can iterate. But the 鈥� so it鈥檚 interesting, I think Timely, interestingly enough. Right?

Diane Tavenner: So this was our conversation with Paymon.

Michael Horn: Paymon. Yeah. We should say this to remind people

Diane Tavenner: Who was working on how do you make a better master schedule? And I think what I agree with him completely as someone who was fanatical about the master schedule that embodies all of your values and your resources, your master schedule does. And yeah, so he鈥檚 really trying to make that better.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And he is clearly designing in the H1. But I think the takeaway I had from it is one thing AI can be really good at is simplifying a lot of these logistics and time and getting the right experience at the right time for the kids who maybe can鈥檛. Their family or guardians or whatever it is can鈥檛 line that up for you. And like so when you think about this operating system of, of industrial model, we move from class to class. It鈥檚 all there in the building. It鈥檚 not outside of the building to something that is much more porous and flexible and so forth. My thought from the takeaway from that conversation was wow, AI could be incredibly helpful at this coordination logistics, pulling in resources truly from the community and each kid probably having different mixes of that.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Right. And I鈥檒l stay with my community center model just idea for a second, like multiple microschools, if you will, or whatever we want to call them, plugging in is you can almost imagine a parent saying like, I want to opt out of parts of this totally because I will manage this. And another parent being like 鈥� or, you know, having a conversation where like, please help.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And you being like okay, we鈥檙e going to line up three amazing outside of school experiences for you and then you鈥檙e going to jump into this learning experience here. But then like, you鈥檙e going to do this project at this other one here because like we鈥檙e hearing what your goals are and where your struggles are and, like, the questions, and we鈥檙e by the way seeing you could use some exposure to this, Steve, and understand is this something you hate or like or et cetera.

Diane Tavenner: And I think what you鈥檙e doing right now is sort of starting to illustrate the difference between Industrial model Horizon one. So Paymon and Timely are working on a master schedule that鈥檚 still within the confines of a building. You know, a five day week schedule that鈥檚 kind of eight to three, that鈥檚 classrooms, you know, I call it the egg crates. It鈥檚 like 1 to 25, like all these, you know, so that鈥檚 what he鈥檚 doing. But now you鈥檙e talking about in my mind a new operating system that would greatly sort of expand beyond those boxes, those little egg crate boxes to all the possibilities that could be practically now assembled and personalized for families and kids. And so that kind of would be the H3 version, I think of what Timely would do, don鈥檛 you think?

Michael Horn: I鈥檓 learning here already. No, I think I鈥檓 100% and I鈥檓 getting clarity now. Okay.

Diane Tavenner: And so I think this is a perfect example of like, yes, Paymon, go please. Like there鈥檚, like another school year is coming and please can we get off the magnetic whiteboards where people are still like by hand trying to create master schedules which we know is not going to deliver and do use AI to do that significantly better, significantly faster in a significantly more personalized way. So I thought that was an exciting tool for that reason and it provides that clarity, we just said. I think that. Yeah, I鈥檓 curious.

Michael Horn: OK, where are you gonna go?

Diane Tavenner: I can鈥檛 decide where to go.

Michael Horn: That鈥檚 OK.

Diane Tavenner: I can鈥檛 decide because 鈥� well, let鈥檚 just remind people of the other folks we talk to. So we talked to Dicia Toll, who is working on CourseMojo, which is the ELA sort of in classroom experience. And I think I would kind of bucket her, that conversation with the one we had with Matt Pasternak who is, is at Once there. He鈥檚 working on reading younger kids and how they read, starting very sort of human based and then bringing in AI to support. And if we remember, he鈥檚 doing really interesting things of how you鈥檙e using all the people resources.

Michael Horn: Giving really cool experiential opportunities potentially for high school.

Defining a school鈥檚 basic elements

Diane Tavenner: Right, right. Which takes me back as you were talking a minute ago and I鈥檓 thinking back to Dan Efflin鈥檚 description of at the most stripped down basic level, what is a school? And I love this framing and I think about it all the time now, which is like, it鈥檚 literally a set of, it鈥檚 a group of students, it鈥檚 a group of young people. It is a set of objectives or outcomes that those young people are trying to reach. And it鈥檚 a bundle of resources we have to help them do that. At the end of the day, that鈥檚 the most stripped down version. And I think Once is super interesting in how they鈥檙e thinking about the potential resources, high school kids, you know, instructed to teach young kids in the virtuous cycle that鈥檚 sort of created there.

Michael Horn: I just had this thought I hadn鈥檛 had it before, but there鈥檚 like a. Both a very cool career potential. Right. Of teaching for those kids also, frankly though, if they don鈥檛 do that, because I can imagine some people being like, oh, this is like very self determinative or whatever. And I don鈥檛 know how I feel about that. I actually think it鈥檚 also a very cool, like, parenting 101 opportunity, if you will, for kids to get experience with younger kids and learn about the science of reading and, like, some of the motivation stuff that I鈥檓 sure Matt is baking in, things not to do and so forth.

Diane Tavenner: And I would add a third is the entrepreneurial nature of this. So I talked to him about how could high school kids create summer businesses where they鈥檙e using once to tutor kids in their neighborhood and set up like little entrepreneurial ventures which he鈥檚 super excited about and open to. And so that type of creative thinking about, you know, recognizing and seeing high school kids as resources to help anyone learn but other especially younger kids to learn such a, I just, I love that kind of thinking. I wish it were just across the system in so many different ways.

Michael Horn: Totally agree.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. One thing that we have talked about that I think is worth bringing up here is we both noted with both of those conversations how these are not, these have required significant human expertise to create these products sort of in collaboration with AI, if you will.

Michael Horn: That鈥檚 a good way to put it.

Diane Tavenner: You know, and I think Dacia did a good job of really walking us through like the level of intentionality and intervention and human expertise that has gone into creating those really cool, important, rigorous experiences in the classroom. So I鈥檓 curious like what you think about that and how you process that.

Michael Horn: So I agree. I will tell, I鈥檓 just gonna be honest. I left the Dacia conversation glowing for like 10 hours afterwards. I was so excited. And I think a large part of it was because of what you just described, with the intentionality of what is great, not just like good, great practice looks like.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And let鈥檚 recognize that like, like 80 plus percent of teachers don鈥檛 have the training or background or can鈥檛 time or whatever.

Diane Tavenner: Like, what she described happening in that classroom is humanly impossible to do. I don鈥檛 care how good you are.

Michael Horn: Totally agree, right? But like, even if you were one on one or one on two, that鈥檚 fair. Like, a lot of teachers still don鈥檛 have that background.

Diane Tavenner: True.

Michael Horn: Right. And she鈥檚 looking at the best practitioners to think about the next best question with the text. Like really deep in the text. And that鈥檚 something I think that often comes up also right is you can鈥檛 just do this in a generalized way. Like actually really digging in is important to create this instructional tool. So impressive.

I also really appreciated how she was like, look in your framework of H1 through, like she engaged in that framework and was like, I鈥檓 on the H1, maybe H2 part of this. I found that really helpful because, like, it immediately, it鈥檚 like, this is where I鈥檓 sitting. But by the way, I can easily imagine what she鈥檚 built being part of an H3 set of offerings as well.

Rethinking traditional classroom model

Diane Tavenner: I think that鈥檚 right. And so let鈥檚 go there. Because my current favorite provocation, I鈥檓 probably driving a lot of people crazy with this is what if? And what I asked them to do is pretend for a minute that we can never ever, ever again have classrooms with one teacher, 25 kids, five days a week, 50 minute periods. I don鈥檛 even care if you have a block schedule every other day for, you know, 90 minutes. We can never do that again. Imagine we can never ever do that again. How are kids going to learn? Can we like expand our imagination how they can learn? And the reason I鈥檓 provoking this is I loved everything Dacia said and agreed with you. I left sad because of the comment where she was like, yeah, they鈥檙e doing it a couple days a week.

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And I鈥檓 like, why? Just we鈥檙e going back to the 1 in 25 egg crate to do all these other things and we鈥檙e just doing that. Why? Why aren鈥檛 we doing that more? Why aren鈥檛 we doing that really strategically or what? Like, I don鈥檛 understand, you know, this. Yeah. How we鈥檙e thinking about that. And so that felt depressing to me.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah, I hear that. I think it speaks to something different that we were going to hold on, but I鈥檓 going to go there now because you鈥檝e been forwarding me pieces around the adoption of AI in the workplace.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And Reed used the analogy that we鈥檝e both loved for some time that Ethan Mollick at Penn uses, which is like thinking about AI like electricity. And this sort of, there was the paradox. Right. Electricity got introduced. It didn鈥檛 actually increase productivity until you redesigned the business models and factory models, models around it so you could distribute, as opposed to have the central drive shaft. And I think the same thing is playing out right now in industry, which is like AI, more of a cost ad, maybe marginally product, you know, productivity, particularly for coders, but maybe not elsewhere. And large parts of enterprises are frankly not using it to its theoretical capacity.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And I think the same thing may be true in schools right now as well, with. Well, maybe this will get us into Magic School. Unless the tool fits the workflow exactly as you鈥檝e currently designed. And like Dacia鈥檚 thing, it does. Like, you do need to rethink use of time and space. Right. And like, what. And activities and instructional plans and coherence.

And like, it raises all these questions that are problems in the current model.

Diane Tavenner: Correct. Correct. You鈥檙e right. I have been forwarding you lots of things because, you know, I love to do this. I love to go and look out into other industries because it helps me sort of understand the principles and kind of what鈥檚 going on. And then I feel like sometimes I鈥檓 too close to it in education. And so I need that sort of distance to then come back and look at what we鈥檙e doing through that lens.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And so one of the things that happened to me this season is I just engaged in a whole bunch of conversations with people who are in different industries, and I鈥檝e been really trying to deep dive into how are you using AI and how are you bringing it into your company or your work or what you鈥檙e doing? How. How is it getting integrated and whatnot. And these articles I鈥檝e been sending you this last week was profound to me. This line of inquiry has led me to believe one. And I鈥檒l just say this again, AI is not changing education full stop. Like, the only thing that will change education is humans.

We can use AI as the tool to do it, but AI is not changing education. There鈥檚 zero evidence that it鈥檚 changing education. One in my view. And then two, it doesn鈥檛 appear to be changing business as fast as everyone鈥檚 at. And so like, we started this season with me feeling like this is like coming. It鈥檚 coming like a tidal wave and it鈥檚 gonna hit us and we have to get ready. And it鈥檚 going fast and I鈥檓 ending this season like, oh, no, this is electricity. This is a 70-year project.

Like, calm down, we actually have time because it鈥檚 just not coming that way. And the specific thing that came this week that crystallized it for me is learning that all of the hyperscalers, so OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini in some form or fashion, different but similar, literally are paying a lot of money to, let鈥檚 call them an intermediary or third party to force companies to adopt AI and integrate it into their workflows because it鈥檚 not happening naturally. What appears to be happening naturally is like all these companies jumped on, okay, let鈥檚 do a pilot, let鈥檚 figure this out. They鈥檝e been running those, they鈥檙e not working. And so they鈥檙e tossing AI. They鈥檙e like, no, we鈥檙e not going to do that.

Michael Horn: Because it鈥檚 expensive. The computer power, the tokens, right? It鈥檚 expensive and people aren鈥檛 using it.

Diane Tavenner: Like, it鈥檚 not happening the way they thought. And so, you know, in OpenAI apparently is going to give their private equity companies a huge amount of money to force their companies to integrate AI, OpenAI, you know.

Michael Horn: See if any of that money materializes the business model of 鈥� I mean, that鈥檚 another shaky thing in all this is like, which companies will still even be here at the end of this? Google probably will, but like, we don鈥檛 know.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And I think it was Anthropic who鈥檚 going more of the consulting route. So MacKenzie and those folks, and they鈥檙e going to use them to try to deploy it. And Google had a 鈥� what was their strategy? Like a combo of the two or something like that. Anyway, I鈥檓 like, if it鈥檚 not happening in business, where they actually put resources to these things and efficiency is their, you know, the way they鈥檙e competing, it is not happening in education. We don鈥檛 have the resources to do what they鈥檙e doing. We don鈥檛 have the incentives they have.

And so, it just gave me sort of like in some ways a good breath of like, oh, we have more time. And then two, oh, unless we actively do this, this is not gonna be the tool that helps us.

Michael Horn: Yeah. So stay on this. This is really interesting on a few fronts. You鈥檙e crystallizing something I had been thinking about but hadn鈥檛 fully dawned on me, which is I do think what鈥檚 true in the business world, and I think it鈥檚 very true in the education world, is individuals are using it in bespoke ways.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And like, I鈥檝e been thinking about some danger of recording and then this won鈥檛 be out for a few weeks. But I鈥檝e been thinking about writing something around how, like, for years, education was like the last place to adopt technology. Right now it鈥檚 actually adopting technology very quickly. And that鈥檚 the problem. And the reason I say that is, I think teachers are pulling it into workflows that exist. This is the Magic School thing that we learned what they鈥檙e already doing, but more efficiently, perhaps with less thought, et cetera, et cetera.

But to your point, from an enterprise like reworking workflows. No.

Diane Tavenner: Right. Which goes back to that idea of the operating system, right?

Michael Horn: But I think 鈥� so the other thing I want to just say on this is the other reason I鈥檝e been skeptical. All my friends that live out where you live in Silicon Valley tell me that, like, you don鈥檛 get 鈥� it鈥檚 exponential improvement, and therefore it鈥檚 going to like, flip a switch and the world鈥檚 going to change and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And Reed has this view a bit as well, right? That he said.

But I think what they discount is, like, they think through a very narrow lens of how work is done, and they discount all of the human friction that you just started to allude to and organizational friction and legacy systems and stuff like that. Not just in education, but, like, I think you鈥檙e right. It鈥檚 actually in almost every part of the economy.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And I鈥檒l just say two funny things about that, because that鈥檚 where I live, as you know, that鈥檚 like the water that I swim in. And I do think a lot of that sentiment comes from. It is moving most quickly and most effectively in software development.

Michael Horn: I mean, that鈥檚 why you see the product development. I mean, that鈥檚 why I think you see and it鈥檚 important. Amazing, right, Claude code is amazing.

Diane Tavenner: Amazing.

Michael Horn: And it鈥檚 like zeroing in on an application in a part of the economy that they understand. And it鈥檚 a narrow set of 鈥� I鈥檒l misuse the Howard Gardner multiple intelligences. It鈥檚 a narrow set of intelligences, like, you know, what my point is, though. Yes. I don鈥檛 mean to lift that up as a valid framework, but I more mean it as an analogy.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: Let me say it this way more specifically. Right. Which is an interesting thing about these large language models is they鈥檙e largely trained on language and images, and like we have as humans, have lots of other senses that are not going into these things.

Diane Tavenner: Right, right, right, right. And it turns out we have a lot of power and control over our systems and our lives and whatnot. At the end of the day. Well, that kind of leads us into the last two tools that we explored, OK?

Michael Horn: Kira and Magic School.

Diane Tavenner: Kira and Magic School. And I mean, just a funny aside, I don鈥檛 know if people could detect this, but I think we have to come clean and be honest. Like, both of us left one episode this season pretty, like, frustrated, angry. I mean, I had a very hard, long weekend after one episode because it really, like, shook me. They were different episodes.

Michael Horn: OK, yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And I don鈥檛 think either of us predict that we would have our own emotional reaction or that the other person would. So I will come clean and say, yeah, I mean, I had a really rough weekend after we recorded the Magic School episode on a Friday, and it shook me.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And I don鈥檛 know how you would describe your feelings after the Kira 鈥�

Michael Horn: After the Kira 鈥� ? Yeah. I mean, could people hear the frustration? I don鈥檛 know.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. You were frustrated.

Michael Horn: I was frustrated. I think before that, I will say on the Magic School, one little surprised me about the conversation. And so maybe that鈥檚 why I didn鈥檛 have quite the emotional reaction. I was not surprised by the direction it went. But we can break that down. The Kira, I鈥檒l just say, rather than hide it. I was trying to understand in more detail, like, what are you, like, what does this actually look like when you say you have a Central American country, that it鈥檚 all moving over to a new. Like, that鈥檚 a big claim.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: What is it? Like, what does that actually mean? Look, like, how are you changing workflows, what people are doing? And when you say, like, contrast with Dacia.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Reflecting on content personalization

Michael Horn: Because Dacia鈥檚 episode we recorded, I think, afterwards, and that鈥檚 when I had this big breath of fresh air to me was like 鈥� she鈥檚 like 鈥� we went deep in the content as humans to really understand what it鈥檚 saying. And I felt like, so maybe Kira鈥檚 able to ingest anything of content and, like, magically make it awesome and personalized and 鈥� But it took me back to a lot of stuff in like the mid 2010s that talked about personalization and data without, like a clear view of like, how are we assessing mastery? How do we understand this thing? And like, if you don鈥檛 have a viewpoint on that, I鈥檓 not sure how you鈥檙e driving these behaviors. And so I鈥檓 鈥� I鈥檓 not castigating the tool because I just, it was more like I wanted to understand more.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And that was what I mean. We hung up and you were like, I don鈥檛 鈥� I鈥檓 so frustrated. I don鈥檛 understand what it does.

Michael Horn: Yeah. It was more limitations.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And to be fair, as you know, I鈥檝e spent multiple hours now sort of getting under the hood.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: I think that鈥檚 a really interesting response though. That, and what it made me reflect on is Kira is currently in the complexity. So I always love this, you know, quote that gets, you know, you start with simplicity, you move into complexity and the goal is to get to the other side of complexity, back to simplicity, so people can understand it. And I was, I realized that I have been sucked into Kira because it is in that complex, messy place.

Michael Horn: Yeah. So it鈥檚 hard to describe.

Diane Tavenner: So much potential there though, that I can see when I鈥檓 really geeking out and nerding out. And so I see the possibility there. But I鈥檓 doing like all that mental translation, I think, having dug in. So. But I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a simple story yet by any stretch of the imagination.

Michael Horn: Which is fine, right? Like a startup. It doesn鈥檛 have to be until product market fit is so clear.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And there鈥檚 a lot to be figured out there and understood. But I do think it鈥檚 the closest thing I鈥檝e seen to the potential of being kind of this operating system. Post industrial operating system. And I will just say quickly that like, part of your skepticism probably comes from like, we get a lot of people calling, emailing us, stopping us, you know, at the ASU + GSV, telling us we鈥檙e doing exactly what those people said we鈥檙e doing. And then we try to dig in and we鈥檙e like, are you really. You know, and so. And you get more of it than I do.

Diane Tavenner: And so I bet.

Michael Horn: I think that鈥檚 certainly true. And I think I鈥檓 also part of my skepticism is I kind of think you have to build for this H2, H3.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And purposely say we鈥檙e not building for H1 to do, if you鈥檙e really going to be the operating system for this new model. I think anything you build in H1 that鈥檚 optimizing around that is going to do two things. I think it鈥檚 going to suck you out. Like I think there will be values that are in contradiction with each other and you can鈥檛 do both. And two, I think because the most of the kids are still in H1 and most of the money is still in H1, we鈥檙e going to see what every venture backed ed tech company has done which is like start out with this value proposition that sounds great. And then move back into the traditional system. Because that鈥檚 where the money is.

Diane Tavenner: And that is huge tension. It鈥檚 a huge tension and it鈥檚 a limitation in our sector quite frankly.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And I think venture does not help it because they have very rapid expectations of growth that are incompatible..

Diane Tavenner: Incompatible with that. And so how do we get someone to build for H3? It鈥檚 a huge question.

Michael Horn: Let鈥檚 go into it next year more because I think what you did at Summit, actually doing it interdependently with the school model is. And with the AI tools available now, maybe actually easier to do parts of that. I think that鈥檚 gonna have to be the answer, but let鈥檚 hold on.

Diane Tavenner: Let鈥檚 hold, let鈥檚 hold.

Michael Horn: So let鈥檚 talk about Magic School because you had a reaction but like this is a place where I鈥檓 gonna say it. They do have product market fit. It鈥檚 taken off like gangbusters.

Diane Tavenner: Like crazy. Which is 鈥� well, let me just say the parts that I really spent that weekend grappling with and struggling with. So the first is, I mean the clarity with, of the purpose of Magic School being to make teachers鈥� lives easier. And so first of all I just have sort of, that is not my goal or objective ever.

Michael Horn: Period.

Diane Tavenner: And it鈥檚 not because I don鈥檛 love teachers. It鈥檚 not because I don鈥檛 think educators are amazing. Look, I am one. I do that role, whatnot. But my goal is not to make a teacher鈥檚 life easier. My goal is all about the young person. And I view all of us, me included, who are not those young people as resources to that young person鈥檚 learning journey to get them to their outcome. And so I just think when you orient around making a teacher鈥檚 life easier, you by definition are no longer focused on the student.

Critique of current education standards

Diane Tavenner: And so I just think that fundamental premise is problematic to me. Second, it just as a teacher who is really committed to the craft of teaching and learning and education. I just feel like it sets this incredibly low bar. And you know, we had a dialogue about, you know, IEP creation. And as you know, I spent a lot of time in Magic School and I was really disturbed by this, like popped out generated IEP for a variety of reasons that was terrible. And you know, the idea that that was somehow better than what is existing in school that had the kids wrong kid鈥檚 name on it is like good enough or we should be celebrating or like that鈥檚 our bar.

I just can鈥檛. That鈥檚 just not who I am as an educator. You know, my 鈥� every morning I wake up and say like, is this a school I would want to go to as a student, teach in, send my child to. And I don鈥檛 want, that does not meet my bar in any way, shape or form. So I鈥檇 rather not be doing education than doing it at that kind of standard. And then the third thing was I鈥檝e just seen this movie before. So first it was, you know, teachers, paid teachers where we just throw these random activities up and, and you know, you鈥檙e just doing this activity driven thing.

And then it was Pinterest where teachers are just grabbing stuff off of Pinterest. And now it is Magic School, and it just really diminishes. It makes me so sad. It鈥檚 like, really, that鈥檚 who we are?

Michael Horn: Yeah, I think I wasn鈥檛 surprised by any of that, which is why I will say I appreciated, when you talked about learning styles and stuff like that. I was. We were both pretty horrified by that given the research clarity around that learning styles is a myth Yeah, so full stop. I thought his answer on the IEP, I could appreciate it a little bit more because I do think that the baseline is not what we would hope across.

And so I get it. And I think my overriding thing is like, it illustrates to me the problems with H1, which is, and I, you know, I sent this thing to you that I did with Rick Hess. I think because existing school models struggle with, with coherence, rigor, you know, setting clear expectations for students and focusing on the student frankly, any model, any tool you sell into that model that gets immediate uptake without significant process and priority changes, as frictionless as that has, and the other tools that you named have, it鈥檚 actually amplifying those things rather than solving them.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, I completely agree. Completely agree. And then of course the business model of we鈥檙e going to get all these teachers to use it. And then we鈥檙e going to take the data to the school or the school district and say, did you know all your teachers are using it? You should buy an enterprise license. That was deeply disturbing to me. That鈥檚 the seat that I sat in most recently. And I鈥檓 like, really? Am I going to be like, that鈥檚 how I鈥檓 making my decisions about what tools we鈥檙e adopting?

Michael Horn: Well, I鈥檓 going to say independent, though. Right. Of the. That this is my bigger point right now. I think of like, the individuals in the system are just doing stuff. And that鈥檚 where I think education actually is. I again 鈥� I think, the moniker. We鈥檙e tech backwards. Rip Van Winkle wakes up and recognizes the classroom. I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 true anymore in this era because they are using a lot of stuff. In fact, districts are using 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Have licenses to 3,000 tools on it.

Diane Tavenner: That stat, you tell me that. You鈥檝e said that like 20 times.

Michael Horn: Mind blowing, right? It鈥檚 mind blowing, and it鈥檚 a problem.

Diane Tavenner: I know.

Michael Horn: Most of them we know don鈥檛 get used.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: We know for the effective ones that it鈥檚 like a 5% problem of only, you know, students on a certain part of the curve even using them.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: To me, though, these are all model problems at the end of the day. And that鈥檚 where I think I can get my head around. Okay, are we working on H1? Are we working on reinventing completely? I can get my head around that there鈥檚 importance and value in both. Personally, I really struggle on the first one because I just think the model is so injurious at this point.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and I think that one of the things that happened in the middle of the season was this backlash to this technology, which we haven鈥檛 even unpacked yet. Literally. We鈥檙e mid season and suddenly almost out of nowhere and overnight, I mean, this massive backlash. And you alluded to it earlier, look, we were already on this trajectory of banning phones in schools. You know, we鈥檝e talked about that over the years. I think we鈥檝e both sort of settled in like, you know? OK.

Michael Horn: Yeah. I mean, I鈥檓 willing to live with it. I don鈥檛 love it.

Diane Tavenner: I don鈥檛 love it either. I will, but I don鈥檛 want to live in the space of like, I wish that we could have a culture in the school where kids could learn to use them responsibly

Michael Horn: No, I agree. Yeah, I agree with that. I guess I鈥檓 more intrigued with some of these other tools that sharply limit and let the educators have control. But look, yeah, I鈥檓 not gonna do.

Diane Tavenner: That鈥檚 interesting. So that one fine we had sort of. But then suddenly overnight we are banning Chromebooks. We are putting limits on the amount of minutes that can be technology can be used in the school in a school day. We are saying that, that no one in a school can use AI, including the teacher in any way, shape or form. Which is the most baffling, mind boggling. Like how do you police that? What does that even mean? And these policies are popping up like crazy. My take on this is that there鈥檚 such a lack of understanding and such a conflation going on.

So there鈥檚 all these cases and the, the heightened sensitivity around social media and the negative impacts on kids that is mostly sitting on their phones but certainly it鈥檚 online and some kids are, you know, districts are not using the filters and whatnot. And so they鈥檙e maybe getting on their Chromebooks. So that鈥檚 getting conflated with actual useful learning tools, useful learning technologies, useful operational system technologies. And we鈥檙e just suddenly going to just ban everything.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Seriously.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And this is so this is the thing, right? Let鈥檚 like we live in the nuance. We like the third way. That鈥檚 our trademark, for better or worse, let鈥檚 like spell it out. We are simultaneously not thrilled with large parts of the ed tech market that is going into traditional schools. And so I understand why the backlash is emerging. I would agree that for the most part they have not been useful in some cases counterproductive.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: And these policies are limiting. So we鈥檙e not going to let someone use CourseMojo for, like what?

Diane Tavenner: That was the first example that we came to. Or we鈥檙e going to say like well if you use it and you. We鈥檙e going to count the timer, you use that for 20 minutes. So you only have 40 more minutes today for the whole day to use any sort of technology.

Michael Horn: Like what are we doing?

Diane Tavenner: What are we doing?

Michael Horn: Yeah. And so 鈥� or like Amira Learning, which Dacia also talked about, which very well studied, lots of RCTs. We鈥檙e not going to like let them use that? And then there鈥檚 been this whole meme that has gone on about a particular company i-Ready on the internet over the last few weeks about how there鈥檚 no studies behind that them. Fine. I鈥檓 not going to defend them right here except to say like that鈥檚 true of every freaking textbook and material we have ever had in school.

So let鈥檚, like, have an honest conversation.

Diane Tavenner: Well, yes, and, and all the 鈥� the 鈥� the negatives that you just said about ed tech are 100% true of all of those industries, if you will. The other thing, like, let鈥檚 put Once in this. There鈥檚 a bunch of places banning technology use with kids under certain age, period, full stop. They can鈥檛 use Once to teach their kids to read, even though there鈥檚 human component to it. Like, this is crazy.

Michael Horn: This is crazy.

Diane Tavenner: This is literally taking a sledgehammer to 鈥�

Discussing educational model challenges

Michael Horn: What is a real problem. And I鈥檝e been thinking a lot about it, like, what鈥檚 the role, you know, blended and all these things that we鈥檝e sort of movements that we were part of. And I was looking back and I was like, I actually think we were pretty clear. Like a station rotation, which is all I said in elementary school, from a traditional district should even attempt. I鈥檓 partial to the flex model that I, in our typology, but, like, I didn鈥檛 think most districts had the cultures or routines or processes to do it. A station rotation model imagines a kid on a computer for like 30, 45 鈥�

But to your point, these blunt acts policies 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: They don鈥檛 give any discretion or flexibility or professionalism to the people in the school who are having to make these choices and decisions. And the tension there, of course, is like, wow, did we lose that? Did we deservedly lose that trust?

Michael Horn: That trust, yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Because we are making some bad choices about what we鈥檙e bringing in. We are wasting money on things we鈥檙e not using. We are not thoughtfully integrating, you know

Michael Horn: So, two thoughts here, because I think you鈥檙e right. And so we鈥檝e sort of made our. Our point of view known. I hadn鈥檛 thought about this, but I loved that Dacia said we鈥檙e doing outcomes based on contract.

Diane Tavenner: Yes, I do too.

Michael Horn: I鈥檝e been saying this since 2009. Like districts. And districts would look at me like I was crazy. There鈥檚 now, you know, through the Southern Education Group.

Diane Tavenner: There鈥檚 a whole group.

Michael Horn: There鈥檚 a way, there鈥檚 a boilerplate language. I think every ed tech company worth its salt ought to do a contract.

Diane Tavenner: Well, let me just amend that because I鈥檓 in that space right now. That鈥檚 the exact place I wanted to go because I鈥檝e sat on the other side, and I was like, this is brilliant. I love this, and quite frankly it鈥檚 good for me too because it doesn鈥檛 help me if someone buys me my product and never uses it. That鈥檚 actually bad for all of us.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah. Zombie revenue, etc.

Diane Tavenner: But the problem is even the outcomes based contracting people will tell you, oh, we only really are ready to do this with very limited number of products where there are clear measures. I think we鈥檝e got to push on that. I鈥檓 hoping to be one of the people who will push on that because the space I鈥檓 in, they鈥檙e like, oh, we have no idea how to tackle that space.

Michael Horn: But this would be amazing. Amazing. I鈥檓 gonna go into one of your other bugaboos. Yeah, this would be amazing. Like RCTs is one way to look at the world.

Diane Tavenner: One way.

Michael Horn: If you have outcome based contracting with assessments and measures that we trust. Yes, it solves itself totally. And so, like, this is a way I think to actually develop incentives.

Diane Tavenner: I agree.

Michael Horn: To get those more grassroots driven. What鈥檚 the outcome we鈥檙e trying to drive? What鈥檚 the right assessment or measure for it? And let鈥檚 count it like conversations.

Diane Tavenner: I agree with you. And like in my case there are things I specifically know that our technology is designed to do. And so maybe those aren鈥檛 yet, you know, fully industry standard or something. But. But when you鈥檙e buying it, don鈥檛 you want to know what it鈥檚 supposed to do and then figure out if it鈥檚 鈥�

Michael Horn: And then hold it to account for that?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And I think that鈥檚 good for everyone. So I agree with you. I think more there really interesting and 鈥�

Michael Horn: I think that would be a good get instead of the bands. That would be a great place for that. I will say I think it also. We may pull back into school models here for a second. I think it鈥檚 one of the reasons Alpha is attractive also to families is because they feel like they鈥檙e making this big leap, OK? And so actually I heard someone, one of my students said they profiled seven different microschools using AI in different ways. And one of their statements was like families feel like, you know, two hour uninterrupted block of time or whatever feels radical.

Is it really more radical than like seven 45 minute periods? No, but like no one ever thinks that way. But it feels like radical to do, you know, mastery based progression and then like all this time for life skill development and with what you said still true, like it鈥檚 decoupled, and that may have problems for Far transfer.

Diane Tavenner: And I鈥檓 not sure they鈥檙e doing mastery based, but keep going.

Understanding norm-referenced assessments

Michael Horn: Okay, so maybe we鈥檒l come back to that also. But like, I guess my point being like families are opting for it, and I think one reason that they are is not just the price point signaling, but also the old metrics signaling. We might not love the old metrics. NWEA map. I think it鈥檚 like a very bizarre usage of it. And I鈥檓 just going to spell it out for those that. Because I think people still are confused around what a norm referenced assessment often shows, which is like imagine a Y axis of different score levels or achievement levels and like, okay, I鈥檓 at the 90th percentile entering in, relative to the people in my band. There鈥檚 a curve and like, you know, am I falling below or above right them.

And so when they say 2x, it鈥檚 like 2x the person in the middle at my curve is what that鈥檚 showing.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And in some ways it would be shocking if they weren鈥檛 hitting that because the traditional school is capping how fast you can move. We heard Reed talk about this on Dreambox and so if you鈥檙e now uncapped it, I would hope that a student would move at least that much faster.

Diane Tavenner: Well, this is why I question if they鈥檙e doing mastery based. Because that has nothing to do with mastery.

Michael Horn: Say more on that.

Diane Tavenner: I mean where you鈥檙e just comparing against the kid. That is not mastery based. Norm reference is not mastery based.

Michael Horn: Oh, fair enough. Fair enough. OK, so this is where I think they are though is because they also have a bunch of criterion references also going on that they didn鈥檛 talk about.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, I鈥檓 skeptical because they鈥檙e like jumping between adaptive learning programs.

Michael Horn: I think that鈥檚 a big question. Yeah, yeah. I don鈥檛 disagree. And I鈥檓 wondering where the feedback loop truly is in that some friends of ours in the industry who鈥檝e spent a lot more time with the model tell me that there鈥檚 a lot more underneath it. Underneath. And I don鈥檛 know. I don鈥檛 know. I will say simply raising the bar from 60% to 90% was a nice start.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Yeah.

Michael Horn: Because it鈥檚 crazy.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and we did that as well at Summit. You know.

Michael Horn: But it鈥檚 crazy to me that they didn鈥檛 like before. But it reflects also on H1. But I guess my point being more I think that鈥檚 why they have these very traditional measures because it gives, like as a parent, it takes away anxiety.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: I鈥檓 making this big jump. What do you mean? They鈥檙e going to be doing a Tough Mudder and a press conference with athletes.

Diane Tavenner: And like, the familiar measures that give me comfort.

Michael Horn: So I think it鈥檚 almost taking the world as it is, not as maybe we would like it to be. And I think that鈥檚 part of, like, it鈥檚 like, it鈥檚 why. I also think you鈥檒l hear the bragging about the SAT score or the acceptance to Stanford or the, you know, and. Yeah, so I guess I鈥檓 just explaining it a little bit, but. And I think that crosswalk may be part of this process as more families gain maturity around. Oh, is that possible through this? And so I鈥檓 curious.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. So what I think you鈥檙e speaking to is this whole, whole societal shifting sentiments. And so, and we don鈥檛 really talk about this, but this would be an interesting thing to explore next year. Like, is there a way to understand. Well, we know people who look at these things, so there is a way to understand this.

Is the public sort of sentiment moving or shifting or changing? And what is moving it and shifting and changing it? And so, you know, are we in this sort of chaotic period where we鈥檙e like, people are holding onto things of the past, but they鈥檙e like, exploring and looking at the future and they鈥檙e kind of like, you know, there just feels 鈥�

Michael Horn: Well, and here鈥檚 the relationship, right to the tech conversation also, which is like, okay, my kid鈥檚 going to be on this two hours of screen time with AI, it sounds creepy. It鈥檚 a vision model that鈥檚 looking at me, tracking my attention. But there鈥檚 a real measure that shows outcomes.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And so I think, think like now

Diane Tavenner: And this cool cocktail party thing where I just say that my kids, you know, running a Tough Mudder.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Right, right, right. Of running a Tough Mudder. And so like, but here the legislation would ban these movements to like, like this stuff as well. That鈥檚 not. I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 what we want either.

Diane Tavenner: I mean, we鈥檝e never liked legislation, like the type of legislation we鈥檙e seeing popping up overnight. I hope by the time next season starts, it鈥檚 kind of calmed down a little bit and people have sort of gathered their wits. I hope that educators are going and making logical cases as to why with real tangible examples like we鈥檝e just given about why these are not useful policies. And can we actually put something more thoughtful in place? I hope the media doesn鈥檛, you know, sort of fan those, you know, fears and instead sort of brings a little bit of a rationality to it. That鈥檚 of lot of hope. You gotta have it.

Michael Horn: But yeah, I mean, I think, I think my hope on that front continues to be the families that are opting for these new models and that it鈥檚 more grassroots driven because and I think, like, I think that鈥檚 my other piece and we鈥檝e had this conversation offline. Your question a little bit is it really going to be a portfolio of models in the future? Is it really one?

Diane Tavenner: I鈥檓 so curious about this.

Michael HornL and I guess the reason I think it might be a. I think it depends how you define model.

Diane Tavenner: It does.

Michael Horn: And I think it also depends on like, I think it鈥檚 very hard to imagine all families lining up. I鈥檒l say it up front, like a billion people in Alpha school. I would be shocked. Shocked. Because I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 where we

Diane Tavenner: Just count me as a complete skeptical. There鈥檚 no way.

Michael Horn: But I think that鈥檚 the point is like some families are going to say no screen time.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Great. Some families are gonna want more than what Alpha provides OK. But like, let鈥檚, let鈥檚 take the air out of the balloon and let a little more choice with some measures that give feedback loops to the families so that they know they鈥檙e making progress for their kids.

Diane Tavenner: We can鈥檛 help ourselves. We鈥檙e starting to foreshadow all the things we鈥檙e thinking about and what we鈥檙e starting to plan for next season. So I guess maybe it鈥檚 obvious at this point but, people might not realize that literally at the end of every season we get together and we鈥檇 reflect and we make an active choice of whether or not we鈥檙e gonna do another season and this season. I don鈥檛 even think there was a question.

Michael Horn: No. This was the most clear cut we鈥檝e ever been I think.

Diane Tavenner: Clear cut.

Michael Horn: Clear time.

Exploring AI鈥檚 impact on education

Diane Tavenner: I feel like we are so clear. So much more to explore the impacts of AI. So I think we鈥檙e going right back in on that front. Two, I think we have more questions than we had even at the beginning of this season. More people that we want to talk to than we had at the start of this season. So like more, more, of, you know, how what is happening with AI in education? What are the tools? What are the models, you know, what鈥檚 happening on that front? So I guess this is a good time to say, like, if you guys have ideas, people you want to hear from, you know, things you think we鈥檙e not exploring.

We would love to hear from you over the, you know, this will be effectively the summer, if you will. Yeah, I know. It鈥檚 like the one sort of traditional thing we do is, like, have summer break but 鈥�

Michael Horn: We鈥檙e a little traditional.

Diane Tavenner: We鈥檙e a little bit traditional on that front. So we want to hear from people on that front. And then we鈥檝e got these other two kind of funny passion project ideas.

Michael Horn: Are you going to talk about it? Yeah, go for it. No? OK, all right. We got a couple other ideas, which are going to be our curiosity driving it and our desire to explore. But it won鈥檛 be with guests or at least maybe. Yeah, but not.

Diane Tavenner: I don鈥檛 know what form they鈥檙e going to take. I would. Yeah, they鈥檙e interesting. They鈥檙e like things that keep coming up for us, and so I think they deserve a little bit of exploration in maybe not the exact way that we do the rest of the podcast. So we鈥檒l see how they 鈥�

Michael Horn: We鈥檒l see how those take shape. Probably not like season one, where we script every.

Diane Tavenner: No, no, no, no. So. So we hope folks will be excited to join us again for another season.

Michael Horn: I think that鈥檚 right. And send us your curiosity questions and, like, things that we鈥檝e said that don鈥檛 make sense to you. And we鈥檝e both had a lot of hot takes today and left a few dangling.

Diane Tavenner: Kind of a rambling conversation

Michael Horn: I was about to say. Did I give you room for everything you wanted to say?

Diane Tavenner: No, definitely. I mean, this is just like an ongoing dialogue for us.

Michael Horn: So people pick in where the things that we maybe had incomplete sentences or thoughts or you want to hear more.

Diane Tavenner: Definitely.

Michael Horn: We鈥檙e going to scratch those itches next season.

Diane Tavenner: Definitely. I鈥檓 very excited for it. But before we do that, should we

Michael Horn: Do what we鈥檝e been reading or watching or what we鈥檙e going to do?

Diane Tavenner: We should. And I 鈥� I think I have to 鈥�

Michael Horn: Pull out my phone so I know what I鈥檓 reading.

Diane Tavenner: You have to know what you鈥檝e been reading. AndI鈥檝e got. I decided since this is the last episode of the season, I have three things, so I鈥檓 gonna go crazy and share more than one.

Michael Horn: All right, Go for it. Go for it.

Diane Tavenner: You want me to start?

Michael Horn: Yeah, you. You start.

Diane Tavenner: So this one probably won鈥檛 surprise people, I have just recently finished reading “How Countries Go Broke, the Big Cycle” by Ray Dalio. And people have heard me who鈥檝e listened to the podcast before talk about his previous book, “The Principles for Dealing with a Changing World Order,” which was really profound for me in terms of these deep analytical approach to identifying these historical cycles that help me make sense of the world we鈥檙e living in and what sort of feels chaotic. This new one, newer one, about how countries go broke, is a companion to the first one. Obviously it鈥檚 speaking to something that I think about and don鈥檛 know a lot about, which is our debt and what it means if we鈥檙e no longer the reserve currency, et cetera. What I will say about it is it鈥檚 sort of classic Ray Dalio, if you like that kind of thing. It鈥檚 actually comforting to me in a way. So I really 鈥�

Michael Horn: It鈥檚 a critical topic.

Diane Tavenner: It is critical as like a citizen, I think, and a person in the world. So I highly recommend it. I find it fascinating. So that鈥檚 one. The second one is a podcast, you know, that鈥檚 become one of my favorite podcasts. It鈥檚 fascinating. Interesting times with Ross. I never say his last name

Michael Horn: Ross Douthat.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Yeah. He was my year from college, so, you know.

Diane Tavenner: Oh, I didn鈥檛 realize that.

Michael Horn: Different college, but it鈥檚 鈥�

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, OK. And I listened to this one at the same time. I was reading the Countries Going Broke book and they go together in a really interesting way. It鈥檚 titled “A Bitcoin Evangelist Tries to Convert Me.”

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And it is like Bitcoin 101, which again, important topic. Highly related to the “Countries Going Broke.”

Michael Horn: Well, I was going to say highly related to the notion of a reserve currency.

Diane Tavenner: Exactly, exactly. So I found those two things a really interesting pair. And then the last one is, you know how much I love the “Last Invention” podcast series. I thought it鈥檚, it鈥檚 just incredibly well done. They do continue to add these fascinating, you know, episodes here and there, but that comes out of a group called the “Reflector” podcast who actually does all of these other topics. And I just listened to a three-part series titled “Strange Bedfellows When LGB Meet T.”

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And so good. It鈥檚 this historical look at the movement. It鈥檚 incredibly well done. The style design that I love and for me, very personal. Lots of people I love are LGBTQ and living it and it just gave me a lot of incredible insights and history and understanding and provocations and yeah, really fun.

Michael Horn: Super interesting.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: I鈥檒l add that then to summer walk, dog walks, I guess.

What do I have? So I鈥檓 finishing up “Jump,” which is by Larry Miller. It鈥檚 the same. The story of 鈥� so he was on the Jordan Brand and Nike, and it鈥檚 his memoirs, effectively.

Diane Tavenner: OK.

Michael Horn: But he was someone who was incarcerated. He did some, you know, pretty awful things as a young man growing up in Philadelphia. Spent a couple times in jail, got his education while he was in jail, got a degree, and then ultimately an accounting degree from Temple, and then went on to have this incredible career. And it鈥檚 these reflections and frankly, also how he was dealing with this, like, ghosts in his past that no one knew about and he couldn鈥檛 talk about. And sort of. It鈥檚 a really interesting, like, reflection on human potential and how do we think about, you know, this in people.

Diane Tavenner: You were telling me about it last night, and I鈥檓 very curious.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And it鈥檚 a great 鈥� it鈥檚 a great audiobook.

Diane Tavenner: OK.

Michael Horn: So it鈥檚 very 鈥� it鈥檚 very lively.

Diane Tavenner: On my list.

Michael Horn: On your list. I鈥檓 doing a weird 鈥� so I was trying to read books out loud to my kids, because why not?

Diane Tavenner: Because they鈥檙e adorable, and it鈥檚 so fun.

Michael Horn: Yeah, well. But you don鈥檛 get the 鈥� I mean, because they鈥檙e just so racing ahead all the time, right? I don鈥檛 have a lot of opportunities. I was trying to do a couple Mark Twain books with them because I remember loving “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur鈥檚 Court.” Here鈥檚 the takeaway: Really hard to read it out loud.

It鈥檚 really sort of funky.

Diane Tavenner: I was like, oh, interesting choice.

Michael Horn: But as a result, I鈥檓 reading all the Mark Twain books now, so to myself. And so, like, I know you鈥檙e gonna laugh. I don鈥檛 love fiction generally.

Diane Tavenner: No, you don鈥檛.

Michael Horn: Nope. But I鈥檓 enjoying it. So we鈥檒l see where it goes if I keep going through it. But I had this idea that I would culminate with the Ron Chernow biography of Mark Twain.

Diane Tavenner: Oh, my gosh. You be careful before you do that, Scott read it. Do you read how long that book? It鈥檚 long.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: He was in that book forever. Yeah.

Michael Horn: The Ulysses S. Grant book was a long one that I read it by him as well.

Diane Tavenner: I mean, the level of detail about one person鈥檚 life, it鈥檚 extraordinary.

Michael Horn: OK, well, we鈥檒l see if I do it or not, but maybe it鈥檒l slow down my pace in books and I鈥檒l have to watch more TV.

Diane Tavenner: You鈥檒l come back next season and be like, I read one book.

Michael Horn: I read one book this summer. Yeah, no, it鈥檚 entirely possible, but those are the things at the moment on my list.

Diane Tavenner: That鈥檚 awesome. Yeah, I鈥檓 not adding that one to my list.

Michael Horn: Fair enough. Fair enough. I鈥檒l commiserate with Scott afterwards. Huge gratitude, Diane. This has been a lot of fun this season. In some ways we鈥檝e had a lot of fun throughout, but in some ways the most fun that I think I鈥檝e had.

Diane Tavenner: So I agree. This is. We both do kind of a lot of sort of side gigs, volunteer, you know, middle of the night, passion project. But this definitely is very special.

Michael Horn: Huge thanks for all and huge thanks to our audience again because it does really fuel our curiosity and our desire to do this. And feedback keeps us going. Reminder. Subscribe Rate us.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: We forgot to say that up front.

Diane Tavenner: I know. Because we always forget to say it. We鈥檝e never said it, but it turns out it does matter a little. And so if you can even take just 60 seconds to put five stars there and give us some of the feedback that you give us verbally or in writing, it helps a lot.

Michael Horn: And let鈥檚 also say thank yous to 91涩漫 for continuing to distribute. Let鈥檚 say thank you to LearnerStudio for sponsoring the team Danny and Lindsay, who make this come to life at the moment. Really appreciate both of them. Both last names Curtis, but not related. And just huge thanks to everyone that makes this work.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Awesome. And with that 鈥� 

Michael Horn: 鈥� and with that, we鈥檒l see you next time on Class Disrupted.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 91涩漫鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.